Since 1974, the UK has followed a risk-based approach to safety that, in the event of an incident, is enforced through the courts. The legislation is intentionally non-prescriptive and thus requires duty holders and the courts to decide what control measures were reasonable in the circumstances from ex ante and ex post positions. This has proved challenging for all parties involved. This paper describes a series of cases that have shed light on the thought processes of the courts. It appears that there is some variability in decision-making that can be attributed to several factors, including understanding of the word “risk”, the acceptability of residual risk and the validity of historical data as a means of measuring risk. In the aftermath of incidents, there is a real danger that psychological factors may intervene when the prior risk is being assessed for sentencing purposes. It is argued that while the risk-based model continues to enjoy widespread support in the UK and is not challenged, its implementation could be much eased by attention to details. This would serve to simplify courtroom debates, support those practising risk-based regulation and enable risks to be better prioritised.

中文翻译：

---

英国基于风险的监管：法庭之争暴露出持续存在的问题

自 1974 年以来，英国一直采用基于风险的安全方法，一旦发生事故，将通过法院强制执行。该立法是故意非规定性的，因此要求责任人和法院从事前和事后的立场决定在这种情况下哪些控制措施是合理的。事实证明，这对所有相关方都具有挑战性。本文描述了一系列阐明法院思维过程的案例。决策中似乎存在一些可变性，这可归因于几个因素，包括对“风险”一词的理解、剩余风险的可接受性以及历史数据作为衡量风险的手段的有效性。事发后，在评估先前的风险以进行量刑时，心理因素可能会介入，这是一个真正的危险。有人认为，虽然基于风险的模型在英国继续得到广泛支持并且没有受到挑战，但通过关注细节可以大大简化其实施。这将有助于简化法庭辩论，支持那些实施基于风险的监管，并使风险得到更好的优先排序。